That Sarah Palin has the indwelling Holy Spirit is a given ;
IT IS CONSIDERED ALL CHRISTIANS HAVE THE INDWELLING HOLY SPIRIT BY THE FACT THEY ARE BAPTISED WITH WATER AND LIVING IN A STATE OF GRACE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE ACCEPTED JESUS AS THEIR PERSONAL SAVIOUR.
Is the fact of this indwelling sufficient in itself to guarantee the end destination for Palin-should that be what she seeks, her election as President of The United States? Lets look at what the indwelling Baptism in the Spirit gives to a believer to see what the answer might be;
SPIRIT BAPTISM GIVES ONE CHARISMATIC POWER TO BE AN EFFECTIVE WITNESS OR EVANGELIZER IN BUILDING THE KINGDOM (8 Acts.1:8-9 9 Luke.24:48-49).
THIS POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ENABLES US TO BECOME EFFECTIVE. THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IS IMPARTED NOT JUST TO ENABLE US TO LIVE THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, BUT TO ENABLE US TO DO A VIBRANT AND EFFECTIVE MINISTRY. IT IS THE POWER FOR MISSION.
THE BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT EXPANDS OUR VISION, STIRS OUR HEARTS TO ACTION, SUSTAINS US WITH PERSEVERANCE, EMPOWERS US WITH SPIRITUAL GIFTS, AND FILLS OUR HEARTS WITH GREAT JOY AS WE DO OUR MISSION.
That Sarah Palin has, through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit a heart filled with great joy, perseverance, is charismatic, vibrant and effective, has spiritual gifts and leads a Christian life is obvious for all who look at her and hear her words through an unbiased eye and ear.
The answer to the question about Palin's possible political future lies with the definition of the "mission" that she has been empowered by the indwelling Spirit to undertake.
The mission could be to so impress multitudes by her Christian walk, her pro-life beliefs, her dedication to home and hearth, to family to the poor, to moral values and to the betterment of mankind, that she leads people to Christ. If she never tries for or achieves elective office at any level ever again, but through her empowered mission changes untold thousands of lives for the better, than of her it would be said "well done thy good and faithful servant".
If, as Palin herself says a door opens (with the Spirit being the doorkeeper) and that leads her, or she is lead, to seek the highest elective office in the land, then it would be by the Spirit's empowerment to mission.
Now, the key point is that both paths are not mutually exclusive-they very much can be parallel. It may be that by the door opening to seek higher office Palin, through the charismatic gifts of the Spirit, can bring multitudes, not only in America but round the world, to look to a renewal or new beginning of Christ in their lives through her example.
Whether she wins or loses, that aspect will have happened for an incredible, positive good. I believe it would be the highest compensation for "having run the good race" and having lost, if that was the case. On the other hand if the opened door lead to not only the transformation of people's lives, but Palin winning the presidency, then she would have had a gift that has not been given to more than handful throughout history-to begin the work of bringing a country back to God.
For those of us who would see that result as the highest point of a life well lived we should, as John F.Kennedy said "bear any burden" and dedicate our time and skills to progressing, through the power of the indwelling Spirit in us, what we believe is God's plan, by supporting Sarah Palin's mission in any way we can.
Over at the feminist blog Shakesville they had a tortured article about how, and very much against their will, they had to defend Palin.This in respect of the miserable Vanity Fair hit piece.
The need for defending her, after which one commentator advised she would have to lie down with a cold towel across her head, arose not because of the attacks on Palin as a woman necessarily, but because the article attacked Palin on matters so inconsequential that if a man did them they would not get a mention.
Not all feminists came on board however, a noted blogger said the VF piece almost made her defend Palin. One wonders what it would take if e.g. Sullivan's gynecological explorations are not misogyny enough to come to Palin's defense "Because that's what feminists do".
The left is turning on itself because of the errors in the VF article and that now includes feminists turning on the major repository of all things radical leftist-the Daily Kos blog-about which it was commented on on the Shakesville site;
"there is nothing feminist about Daily Kos. If you look up their user profile, it is overwhelmingly male, white, and over 50. No wonder they went crazy bashing Hillary Clinton from the get go in '08". Which insight was further commented on by another "Yep, the privilege denying on Kos is astounding"
The feminists are quite right-the average Kos person turns out, surprisingly, to be a male (63%) , Caucasian(92%) and earning $60+ (to $150K+).
This goes far to confirm that the liberal activist is a member of the elite not the downtrodden they are supposed to have the best interest of. And now it seems they are anti-feminist too, which explains why only 37% of Kossites are female.
Thel irony of the whole Palin situation is that a person who holds no elective office, may never hold office again, and who communicates by Facebook and Twitter is not only impervious to the leftist attacks, but is assisting the radical left to destroy itself.
Update. Here is a challenge straight away for the new feminist friends/defenders of Palin.Gail Collins in The New York Times has run an uber snooty-straight down the nose cynical and snarky hatchet job about Palin.It has all the classy touchstone points-moose killing satire and all.
Go get em Shakesville team !
Not for Palin's political views, or for her social views, and of course not for her right to life views-Heaven forbid!
No even they are fed up with the endless, vicious attacks on Palin as a woman. At "Shakesville" "This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day" Melissa McEwan bemoans the fact that she has to defend Palin against the ridiculous Vanity Fair article (or hatchet job) by Michael Joseph-it pains me to have the same first two names as him) Gross.
McEwan skewers, actually it is too easy, Gross for finding fault in Palin that she is inter alia, purportedly, a bad tipper, has loud fights with her husband and basically acts like politician! But these, par for the course, anti-Palin attacks don't get McEwan's dander up.
What galls her is having to defend Palin-whose real crimes are her pro-life stance "a conservative asshole." Which language shows McKewan can get down in the dirt just like any man. A leopard can't change its spots whether male of female obviously-leftists just can't stop gutter language ad hominems.
Where Gross has gone too far is to attribute basic political shenanigans, at a low toxic level, to a woman which, apparently, would be ignored if committed by a man. This is so horrible that McEwan quotes Monika Bauerlein, co-editor of Mother Jones who tweeted "I don't think anything could make me rear up in Sarah Palin's defense, but this VF profile is close". Close but still not enough for Bauerlein-one wonders what it would take if Andrew Sullivan's gynecological exploration of Palin is not enough to get her in support. I guess some leftist feminists are so instilled with PDS that nothing will get them to defend Palin.
McEwan is also discomforted because of "The number of pieces written about Sarah Palin that compel feminist/womanist women to come to her defense". Oh the agony. Nevertheless McKewan will now "continue to defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears" not because of any special fellow feeling with Palin as a human being , or because it is the right thing to do regardless of gender it appears, but because "that's how feminism works"
The comments section is a revelation-well worth reading-as a veritable mine of grudging acknowledgement that Palin has been subject to the vilest attacks from fellow leftists. Nowhere to be seen however, is an acceptance of the fact that an abundance of the vilest attacks against Palin have come from women-especially the East and West Coast liberal elites.
When feminists call their sisters to account for their unashamed attacks on Palin for her lifestyle and beliefs, no matter how inimical to them, and agree to disagree with Palin, whilst reserving the right to challenge her policies, then they will have acquired balance and credibility.
Has "The War On Drugs" as a government policy been effective? There of course endless arguments from all sides but here are some statistics prepared (in 2008) by " On The Issues"
Drug offenders who serve jail time or traditional probation have a recidivism rate of 45%. Of those who completed ‘drug courts’ monitored treatment programs, the rate was 4%
60% of federal prison inmates are drug offenders, as are 22% of state prisoners.
20% of all felony convictions are for drug trafficking; another 12% are for drug possession.
About 270,000 people are incarcerated on drug charges, up from 48,000 at the start of the ‘Drug War.’
Direct federal spending on the ‘Drug War’ is currently $17 billion per year.
We now see constant headlines about drug cartels in Mexico slaughtering dozens at a time with estimates of total murders running in the tens of thousands.Colombia and Afghanistan are destabilized by the illegal drug trade which contributes to untold, unmeasurable death, destruction and ruined families around the world.
There is an alternative to the seemingly futile "War On Drugs" which is to decriminalize, not just "soft drugs" like marijuana, but all drugs.The, immediate effect would be to finish, once and for all the illicit drug trade with its death and destruction. On the economic front it would immediately stop the $17 billion in spending on the drug war and it would dramatically increase state and government revenues through taxes on marijuana.
There would be a further massive economic benefit with the ceasing or lowering of assistance to families devastated by the illness and incapacity of the breadwinner to work through disease incurred by using poor quality or infected drugs.This would possibly be countered to some degree by individuals being incapacitated by commencing legal drug use but I would imagine the numbers would be relatively small and there would be substantial funds available to assist them through health and education programs.
Is the concept of total decriminalization something that conservatives could not countenance? Rather, does it fit in with the libertarian thinking of Milton Friedman who addressed this situation, ( in his book 'Free To Choose') with reference to alcohol as an example, wherein he canvassed the results of government intervention in free choice during the Prohibition era;
"New prisons and jails had to be built to house the criminals spawned by the converting the drinking of spirits into a crime against the state" Criminals became notorious for their exploits-murder, extortion, hijacking.
"If the government has the responsibility of protecting us from dangerous substances, the logic surely calls for the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco.The reaction of the public to the more extreme attempts to control our behaviour is ample evidence we ant no part of it". Insofar as the government has information about the relative merits or demerits of the items we ingest...let it give us this information. But let it leave us free to choose what chances we want to take with our own lives."
Friedman quotes John Stuart Mill ( 'On Liberty' 1865 ) as a further exponent of the right of the individual to choose unhindered by the state " The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant...Over himself, over his own body and mind the individual is sovereign."
One country in Europe-Portugal has decriminalized all drugs-again, there are no doubt endless arguments on all sides about the result but here is an analysis from the Cato Institute as reported in Time Magazine
"The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.
These are impressive statistics.We know what the situation is in America under the current legislation. Perhaps it is time for conservatives to consider a new approach. Certainly there is substantial and weighty historical philosophical support for it on the right on a libertarian basis-I would be confident Friedman and Mill would approve examining this question in that light.
Kathleen Parker's column on the Beck/Palin rally hits new heights of liberal condescension. But that's OK. Let the lib's keep these coming, keep us ordinary common folks in our place. Show us that our faith, our emotions, our love of flag are just expressions of our addictions and foibles.
Apparently we are disaffected, easily taken for a ride by con men-our patriotism, and our clinging to our guns and religion, are markers which set us apart and below those who are part of the East Coast elite.
What we are too Kathleen is a vast majority 'The plain folks that Lincoln so loved" as said William Jennings Bryan (oh the noses in the air of your predecessors in the East Coast elite at the mention of his name). We are the people of Carl Sandburg of Edgar Lee Masters, of Jackson and Jefferson and yes of Martin Luther King.
We have had quite enough thank you of being led into a ditch by "The One" and the Harvard elite you so look up to.Your class will see in just a few months the harvest they will reap from the chaff they have sown.
If one of our common folks, Sarah Palin receives the Republican nomination for 2012 you will enjoy months of columns dripping with the utmost level of sarcasm you can generate.
But we the people will have the final say. I Hope that when the change comes you will embark on your own 12 step program of recovering from the addiction of class antagonism.
